[1] Mr. Parsons applies for an order in the nature of mandamas to compel Justice of the Peace Peter Holmes to issue process in respect of a 27 count information ["the information"] Mr. Parsons swore May 18, 2000, before Holmes JP under this court file number. The style of cause above is not that which appears on Mr. Parsons' hand written Notice of Application dated September 14, 2000.

[2] Counsel acting on behalf of the Attorney General of British Columbia directed that a stay of proceedings be entered on the information pursuant to s. 579 of the Criminal Code on May 25, 2000.

[3] The law is well established that the decision to direct a stay of proceedings on a private information is not subject to judicial review except perhaps in the case of flagrant impropriety on the part of the Attorney General in directing the stay.

[4] Mr. Parsons argued that because the Attorney General is one of those named in the information, it amounts to a flagrant impropriety for the Attorney General to direct a stay in respect of an information which alleges the Attorney General has committed a crime.

[5] Three counts of the information name the former Attorney General, Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh. Two others name the Ministry of the Attorney General ["the ministry"]. The other 22 counts name the Law Society of British Columbia, a Justice of the Peace (not Peter Holmes), a counsel for the City of Victoria (by name), individual judges of the Provincial Court, this Court and the Court of Appeal and "a majority of the judges" of this Court and the Court of Appeal.

[6] Mr. Dosanjh is named as accessory to the offences alleged against one of the named Provincial Court judges. The ministry is named as a party and accessory to conspiracies alleged against the judges and as a conspirator. Because of the conspiracies alleged and the relationship of the Attorney General to the others named in the information, Mr. Parsons argued it would also amount to a flagrant impropriety for the Attorney General to exercise discretion to direct a stay of the counts in the information which name the others.

[7] If the stay is valid, the information has no effect. Holmes JP cannot be ordered by this Court to issue process on the information if the stay is valid.

[8] Mr. Parsons has not attacked the exercise of the Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion by initiating a properly framed application directed at the Attorney General or counsel who acted on behalf of the Attorney General to direct the Clerk of the Court to enter the stay. Rather than invite Mr. Parsons to do so, I will deal now with his submission that the exercise of the Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion in this case amounts to a flagrant impropriety by the Attorney General.

[9] No one but the Attorney General has the authority to assume the conduct of a private prosecution. The law recognizes that this authority must include the discretion to stay a private prosecution so that someone accountable to the public, the Attorney General, may prevent misuse of the criminal process by private parties. This ensures that no citizen is subject to a private prosecution that does not meet the criteria for charge approval applied to prosecutions undertaken by the Attorney General of British Columbia. Those criteria are first, that there is a substantial likelihood of conviction for the offence charged or an included offence and second, that if there is that substantial likelihood, it is in the public interest that the charge be prosecuted.

[10] Bona fide application of those criteria cannot amount to flagrant impropriety on behalf of the Attorney General. Lack of bona fides is not even implicit, let alone demonstrated, by the mere fact that those named in the information include a former Attorney General and the ministry, nor by the fact the information alleges these parties conspired with others named in the information.

[11] Even a cursory reading of the information discloses that it could not be prosecuted with any substantial likelihood of conviction. For example, the ministry is not a legal person. It cannot be criminally charged. The two counts naming it disclose no charge with any likelihood of conviction.

[12] By way of further example, fifteen of the counts allege that persons named in them committed indictable offences under s. 126(1) of the Criminal Code by contravening "an act of parliament", the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is not an Act of Parliament. It prescribes no offences. It cannot be contravened in a way that gives rise to a prosecutable offence for breaching its provisions. These counts therefore disclose no charges with any likelihood of conviction.

[13] Mr. Parsons swore the information as a result of a decision of the Provincial Court made January 14, 1997 during proceedings on a criminal charge against him in file No. 05192 Western Communities Registry. Mr. Parsons, an anglophone, applied for an order under s. 530 of the Criminal Code that he be tried in English. He did so in order to ensure that a transcript would be available to him pursuant to s. 530.1 (g). The Provincial Court Judge ruled s. 530 did not entitle the accused to an order that he be tried in English. Her decision was upheld by this Court and the Court of Appeal.

[14] Mr. Parsons now argues the Provincial Court Judge was obliged by s. 530 to make the order he requested, and that her failure to do so constitutes an offence against s. 126 of the Criminal Code. That is the gravamen of six counts in the information naming that judge and others. A further seven counts in the information allege conspiracies under s. 465(1)(c) to commit the alleged offences under s. 126.

[15] The action of a judge in declining to make an order under s. 530 of the Criminal Code, whether right or wrong as a matter of law in a particular case, could not conceivably constitute an offence under s. 126 of the Criminal Code in the absence of evidence the judicial power was exercised for a corrupt purpose. The record of proceedings in file No. 05192, which is the only basis for the counts in the information which allege that offences have been committed under s. 126 and s. 465(1)(c), disclose no corrupt purpose. The Attorney General could therefore properly conclude that in the absence of any evidence to support these eleven counts they disclose no charges with any likelihood of conviction.

[16] I need not further analyze each count in the indictment. Suffice it to say that patent frailties in all counts of the indictment make it abundantly clear they could not be successfully prosecuted. The facts brought to my attention disclose no flagrant impropriety on the part of the Attorney General's agent in directing a stay of the information. Rather, they disclose a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion to prevent the injustice of the prosecution of criminal charges which have no prospect of resulting in convictions.

[17] There is no basis on which this Court could properly overturn the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in this case. The stay is valid. It follows that Holmes JP cannot be compelled by order of this Court to issue process in respect of the information sworn by Mr. Parsons. Mr. Parsons' application for an order in the nature of mandamus against Holmes JP is dismissed.

October 16, 2000 -- Memorandum to the Legal Publishers issued as directed by Mr. Justice Edwards advising that on the first page of the Reasons for Judgment, the style of cause should read: